International Forum: America’s “Long-Arm Jurisdiction” Is Too Overbearing
The UN Security Council does not prohibit any country from conducting oil trade with Iran, and it also has not officially ordered any country to completely stop its financial cooperation with Iran. America’s long-arm jurisdiction has clear extraterritorial properties, which carry out domestic laws internationally using hegemony and political power.
On July 31, U.S. President Barack Obama announced two new sanctions on Iran; Chinese Bank of Kunlun was also included in the list of sanctions due to business dealings with Iran. In January of this year, the United States, based on the same so-called Iran sanctions resolution, sanctioned China Zhuhai Zhengrong Company without a clear reason.
In order to block the strategic adversary, the United States used numerous tricks: it not only implemented a variety of unilateral sanctions itself, but also tried to impose such unilateral sanctions on third countries to damage the normal economic and trade exchanges among other countries and force them to act according to its orders on the issue of sanction. An example is that the United States used its special status in the international financial system to “exercise jurisdiction over” the economic and financial entities of other countries using its domestic law.
In recent years, the United States has firmly grabbed Iran’s nuclear program, introducing several sanctions outside the resolution of the UN Security Council. According to the standards of international law and the sovereign equality of states, a country has no right to impose its domestic law on other countries, and a country also does not have to comply with the obligations of another country's domestic law. The decree that the United States cited for sanction on Bank of Kunlun this time is its domestic law; no basis can be found in previous solutions of the UN Security Council on Iran’s nuclear issue. The UN Security Council does not prohibit any country from conducting oil trade with Iran, and it also has not officially ordered any country to completely stop its financial co-operation with Iran. America’s long-arm jurisdiction has clear extraterritorial properties, which carry out domestic laws internationally by using hegemony and political power.
China has normal relations with Iran, carried out in the energy, economic and trade fields. It is an open and transparent business collaboration and has no relation to Iran’s nuclear program, does not violate any of the resolutions of the UN Security Council and other international standards, does not damage the interests of any third party, and is completely legitimate. The spokesman of the U.S. State Department repeatedly expressed that sanctions against Iran are “not taken against China,” and will not “change the fundamental nature of [U.S.] cooperation with China on Iran.” This is probably “admission to its own guilt.” U.S. sanctions against China’s economic and financial entities damage China’s interests and offend China’s dignity, and will inevitably have a negative impact on Chinese-U.S. bilateral cooperation.
In fact, China's position on non-proliferation is consistent and clear: firmly uphold the international non-proliferation system and oppose the efforts of any country in the Middle East, including Iran, to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Pressuring sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the Iranian nuclear issue; dialogue and communication is the only way. Together with all parties, positive mediation and peace talks play a constructive role in promoting a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. The United States, ignoring concerns on the Chinese side, imposes sanctions on Chinese companies and banks unilaterally over and over, which is not helpful to the unity of the International Nonproliferation System. To deal with the strategic differences in coping with the Iranian nuclear issue between China and the U.S. “aggressively” further contradicts the goal of resolving the nuclear issue of Iran, and is bound to undermine the basis for coordination and cooperation in the Iranian nuclear issue within the international community.
The United States should understand that it cannot "conquer the world.” Washington D.C is too overbearing in that it asks other countries to do this and that out of self-interest, and sanctions vigorously over the slightest unhappiness.
On July 31, U.S. President Barack Obama announced two new sanctions on Iran; Chinese Bank of Kunlun was also included in the list of sanctions due to business dealings with Iran. In January of this year, the United States, based on the same so-called Iran sanctions resolution, sanctioned China Zhuhai Zhengrong Company without a clear reason.
In order to block the strategic adversary, the United States used numerous tricks: it not only implemented a variety of unilateral sanctions itself, but also tried to impose such unilateral sanctions on third countries to damage the normal economic and trade exchanges among other countries and force them to act according to its orders on the issue of sanction. An example is that the United States used its special status in the international financial system to “exercise jurisdiction over” the economic and financial entities of other countries using its domestic law.
In recent years, the United States has firmly grabbed Iran’s nuclear program, introducing several sanctions outside the resolution of the UN Security Council. According to the standards of international law and the sovereign equality of states, a country has no right to impose its domestic law on other countries, and a country also does not have to comply with the obligations of another country's domestic law. The decree that the United States cited for sanction on Bank of Kunlun this time is its domestic law; no basis can be found in previous solutions of the UN Security Council on Iran’s nuclear issue. The UN Security Council does not prohibit any country from conducting oil trade with Iran, and it also has not officially ordered any country to completely stop its financial co-operation with Iran. America’s long-arm jurisdiction has clear extraterritorial properties, which carry out domestic laws internationally by using hegemony and political power.
China has normal relations with Iran, carried out in the energy, economic and trade fields. It is an open and transparent business collaboration and has no relation to Iran’s nuclear program, does not violate any of the resolutions of the UN Security Council and other international standards, does not damage the interests of any third party, and is completely legitimate. The spokesman of the U.S. State Department repeatedly expressed that sanctions against Iran are “not taken against China,” and will not “change the fundamental nature of [U.S.] cooperation with China on Iran.” This is probably “admission to its own guilt.” U.S. sanctions against China’s economic and financial entities damage China’s interests and offend China’s dignity, and will inevitably have a negative impact on Chinese-U.S. bilateral cooperation.
In fact, China's position on non-proliferation is consistent and clear: firmly uphold the international non-proliferation system and oppose the efforts of any country in the Middle East, including Iran, to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Pressuring sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the Iranian nuclear issue; dialogue and communication is the only way. Together with all parties, positive mediation and peace talks play a constructive role in promoting a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. The United States, ignoring concerns on the Chinese side, imposes sanctions on Chinese companies and banks unilaterally over and over, which is not helpful to the unity of the International Nonproliferation System. To deal with the strategic differences in coping with the Iranian nuclear issue between China and the U.S. “aggressively” further contradicts the goal of resolving the nuclear issue of Iran, and is bound to undermine the basis for coordination and cooperation in the Iranian nuclear issue within the international community.
The United States should understand that it cannot "conquer the world.” Washington D.C is too overbearing in that it asks other countries to do this and that out of self-interest, and sanctions vigorously over the slightest unhappiness.